Reins v. Johnson

604 So. 2d 911, 1992 WL 213127
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 4, 1992
Docket91-02473
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 604 So. 2d 911 (Reins v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911, 1992 WL 213127 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

604 So.2d 911 (1992)

Barbara REINS, Appellant,
v.
Don J. JOHNSON, Albinas Smulkstys, Burt Travers and Barbara M. Travers, Appellees.

No. 91-02473.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 4, 1992.

Robert N. Reynolds of Robert N. Reynolds, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Reins appeals an order of the circuit court which adjudicates her guilty of indirect criminal contempt.

Mrs. Reins's allegedly contemptuous conduct occurred during the course of prolonged and acrimonious litigation over the right to use a boat dock. The specific facts — claims of harassment and continuing denial of access to the dock — are not essential to the decision we reach in this appeal. We agree with Reins that the contempt proceedings failed to satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. The proceedings were commenced, not upon an order to show cause as required by subsection (1) of the rule, but only upon the unsworn motion of the plaintiffs in the underlying civil action.

Although there appears to have been no objection below, noncompliance with rule 3.840 constitutes fundamental error. Brown v. State, 595 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Only an express waiver will suffice to estop the aggrieved party from challenging the adjudication on appeal. Persoff v. Persoff, 589 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Mrs. Reins made no such waiver.

The order under review is also deficient in that it fails to recite the "facts constituting the contempt of which the defendant has been found and adjudicated guilty." Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.840(a)(6).

Reversed.

LEHAN, C.J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

A. N. W. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
NICHOLAS P. SANDELIER v. STATE OF FLORIDA
238 So. 3d 831 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Decoro v. State
771 So. 2d 627 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Hagerman v. Hagerman
751 So. 2d 152 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Baker v. Green
732 So. 2d 6 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Judkins v. Ross
658 So. 2d 658 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Hunt v. State
659 So. 2d 363 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Giles v. Renew
639 So. 2d 701 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
604 So. 2d 911, 1992 WL 213127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reins-v-johnson-fladistctapp-1992.